£^50 , 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011837 319 4 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



IE 450 
.S554 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 



HON. ELI S. SHORTER, OF ALABAMA, 



MASS\CHUSETTS PERSONVL LIBKRTY BILL 



CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE SOUTH. 



DELIVRUEl) IN THE HOUSE OF REriiESENTATIVF-S APrwIT. 9, 185G. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE UNION OFFICE. 

1856. 



9r i k\ 



E^S 



SPEECH. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union, 

Mr. SHORTER said : 

Mr. Chairman : The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Dam- 
RELL,] who addressed the House on the 18th of last month, took occa- 
sion in his remarks to allude, as I thought, rather sarcastically to certain 
resolutions which I attempted on several occasions to introduce for the 
consideration of this body. Those resolutions had reference to an act 
passed by the legislature of his State in the month of May last nullify- 
ing the fugitive-slave law of A. D. 1850. I propose this morning tt) 
devote a portion of my time to a discussion of the principles involved 
in those resolutions, and, after that, to pay my respects to the honor- 
able gentleman, and attempt a reply to some points in his speech to 
which my attention has been called. 

It is true, sir, thp.t my resolutions are not before the House for its 
immediate action, because, whenever they were offered, objections 
were interposed from the opposite side of the hall. Thus, a fair dis- 
cussion of their merits, and the expression upon record of the opinion 
of this House thereon, have been evaded by a recourse to the tech- 
nicalities of the rules by which the legislation of the country is here 
conducted. From the political organization of this House, no man 
could reasonably expect ever to be able to press to a final vote any res- 
olution, however sound in principle, which, if adopted, would exclude 
the delegation of an abolition State, and create a vacancy in tlie 
Speaker's chair. 

Mr. Chairman, the fifteen slave-holding States of this Union are vitally 
interested in the faithful execution of the fugitive-slave law. The right 
of recapture is guarantied to them by the constitution of the United 
States, and Congress has passed laws to enforce that right. But Massa- 
chusetts, unmindful of the obligiitions she owes to the South, has seen 
proper, by her personal-liberty bill, practically to deny us the enjoy- 
ment of that right upon her soil. To-day we also find the great State 
of Ohio beginning a system of legislation similar to that adopted by 
Massacliusetts. It is difficult, indeed, to enforce at this time the law 
for the recovery of fugitive slaves in any of the northern States. If 
Massachusetts has the right to nullify the act of A. D. 1850, she may 
also, with equal propriety, repudiate all laws passed by Congress. If 
one State can assume such a position, and maintain it within the Union, 
so may every other State follow her example. What, then, becomes 
of that clause of the constitution of our country which reads: 

" No person held to service or labor ia one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into 
another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such ser- 
vice or labor, but shall be delivered up on claitn of the party to whom such service or labor 
may be due. 



10 F >9 ^ ^ 



I do not intend to discuss the question iiivolvin.c: the right of llie South 
to hold their slaves. That is a suhj.'ct over which you hav(^ no juris- 
diction. The gentleman frorn New'Vork, [.Mr. Guangeu,] in the very 
extraordinary speech wliicli he delivered liere a few days ago — and 
which, by-the-by, was nothing more tiian an echo (and a feeble one at 
that) (d' the address pubhshed by the radical abolitionists who held 
their meeting last year in Syracuse — denied that there was any h(ral^ 
slavenj in the I'niled States. I commend to his study the history of 
his country. If, however, he entertains any doubts as to the hg'dity 
of the institution in Alabama, let him visit my Stale and violate our 
laws regulating slave property, and in that manner he can satisfy 
himself.' Let me tell liim, sir, that th(> South does not derive the right 
and title to her slaves I'rom the constitution of the United States. We 
hold them by virtue of a power greater than that constitution — one 
which existed before its adoption, and which is above and beyond it. 
We hold them by virtue of State authority. When the constitution was 
adopted, it recognised slavery as an existing institution, and threw 
around it the protecting arm of the government. The question now is, 
wlunher that protection shall be nflorded to the South, and her i)eople 
sustained in their constitutional rights? 

The vast amount of capital invested in this species of property may 
be readily ascertained by reference to the census of A. D. 1850. The 
aggregate number of slaves throughout the South is about three million 
two hundred tluuisand. Their present market valuation m;iy bo csti- 
nialed at two thousand millions of dollars. The New York Times, an 
abolition paper, states that, since the passage of the fugitive law in 
ISoO, thirly-Jivc thousand slaves have made their escape from the Sijuth 
into the free Stales, and have been lost to their owners! Why is it, I 
ask, that the border States are thus subjected to a loss of /o?/r millioiis 
of dollars annually ( Because of the failure of a portion of the northern 
])eople to discharge their constitutional oldigations. No wonder, then, 
the South is so keenly sensitive upon this subject. 

It is well known, sir, that when the constitution of the United States 
was adopted Africm slavery existed in nearly all of the original thirteen 
States. Severid of them had, previous to tliat time, commenced a 
system of legislation looking to the gradual emancipation of their slnves. 
For all practical purposes, when the convention assembled, one-halt of 
the States represented may be regarded as being opposed to slavery. 
Under these circumstances, when our fathers met together to frame the 
constitution — with the recollections of the glorious revolutionary struggle 
tlirough which they had just passed still fresh in their memories — they 
found it necessary, in order to establish the Union, tf) yield to the South 
tlie right to recapture their iiigitive slaves wherever they were found. 
A clause guarantying that right was inserted into the constitution without 
a dissenting voice. Massachusetts was present in the persons of Gorman 
and King, and signed the l)ond ! She afterwards ratified their action 
by ailopting the constitution ill her sovereign capacity. Without that 
clause in the constitution the Union never would have existed. Destroy 
it practically by State action, or by the repeal of the fugitive ;ict of 
1S50, Hid you believe that the South, less patriotic now than in the 
days of the' revolution, will quietly submit to the sacrifice of her rights. 



and still cling to the Union ? If such is public opinion at the North, let it 
be at oace undeceived. We understand, gentlemen, what our rights are 
under the constitution, and with the blessmg of God we mean to 
maintai n them. We ask for nothing more— will be content wUh nothing less. 
When the Union was formed, all the States that were parties thereto 
acrreed, as before stated, by solemn compact, to deliver up fugitive 
slaves on demand of their owners. How has that compact been 
observed bv some of the northern States? Let the $4,000,000 annually 
lost bv the South in fugitive slaves answer the question. Let the personal- 
libertV bill of Massachusetts speak. And yet— "tell it not m Oath, 
publish it not in the streets of Askalon"— we find honorable members 
from that SliUe coming into this hall, and, with unblushing eflrontery, 
talk to us about the injustice practised upon the North m the repeal 
of the "Missouri Compromise." Go back, gentlemen, to the original 
comimct which your fathers made with our fathers when the Union had 
its birtli. Inquire if you have complied with the conditions of that 
bond •>. If you have been faithless to your constitutional obligations, it 
ill becomes you to complain of violated faith, even if any wrong Imd 
been done you by the repeal of the Missouri restriction. Why, sir, 
soon after the adoption of the constitution, the free States theinsleves 
believed it was their duty, from the terms of the compact, to aid in the 
surrender of fugitive slaves ; and many of them passed laws to facihtate 
their recovery." Thev have the right, and I hold are in honor bound, 
to legislate in such a manner as wnll assist southern men in recapturing 
their°slaves ; but they have no power to pass any laws limiting or 
restraining the exercise of the constitutional right of recapture. 

What iias been the history of the legislation of Congress on this sub- 
iect'' The first fugitive-slave act was passed in 1793, and was signed 
by tiie " Father of his Country." But experience developed detects m 
that law, and it became necessary to change it. What were those de- 
fects? The iudae or magistrate had no power to issue a warrant for 
the arrest of 'thelugitive, or for his committal after conviction. The 
sheriff" was not liable otficially for an escape ; and the fekalty imposed 
for resisting or obstructing the law was too small to secure its entorce- 
ment. Under those circumstances, the South demanded further legis- 
lation from Congress to protect her constitutional rights. The act of 
1850 was passed ; but how did it pass? Was it granted to us as a 
matter of right? By no means; but reluctantly yielded by way of a 
cornvromise ! The war with Mexico had terminated ; the flag of our 
country had been borne in triumph over many a field of carnage, until 
it waved over the halls of the Montezumas. Peace came, and brought 
with it, as the spcnls of victory, a vast acquisition of territory to the 
Union. But how much did the South receive for her portion I Cali- 
fornia was forced prematurely into the Union as a free State, and by 
that act the South was robbed of Jin empire on the Pacific, richer than 
that of the Ca3sars. The terror of the Mexican law abolishing slavery 
now hangs over Utah and New Mexico,' and excludes southern emigrar 
lion. At the point of the federal bayonet the citizens of Texas were 
driven off-fVom a part of their soil, and forced to sell her slave territory 
to enlarge the hmits of an embryo free State. You violated the consti- 
tution of the United States by abohshingthe slave trade in the District 



5 



nrroluiubia and giving freedom to the glave as a pena ty for the 
n 1 vT ot bear our lull share ..f the burdens ^vl>lch that war uiiposed? 
g :: n^i l^Tnliruearly two-thirds of the -^^-^^:^'^;;\:^:^;:S, 
the liower of our chivalry who lought tl-^- ---^^^ ^- ^^^ \\\ ,^ 

^":n;:;'St:n::;rt;.'[;;:n.r.dur:t.M..o^^^ 

m- braver soldier never hved, cause the hr. ^nu ca a to^c 
unfurled in the hour of victory over the capitnlot the en( n.> / Al 
tins t" done by the South; and „nt a foot ot the terntory acquued 
bv the treaty r,f (Jaudalui)(> Hidalgo was assigned to us. ^ ,^cn> 

^Bu wh did we get under the uusuamed ''compromise" of lb50 ? 
ThMn^^U^uve law,and the repeal of ihc old Mhsourt rcstrictwn ! ^^ hy 
w -^ Ces^a^^^^^ Soull/ to abandon rights so.mportanl to her 

we tl' for the act to recover her fugitive slaves? Did not the e..ns i- 
ntioi r n .ho foundation of the government, guaranty her tha nght ? 
C ■ • . ly it did. But the North refused to execute the law ot 17J3. 
Uneuch circumstances, therefore, and as a co/«/>mn..c w.th the 
No th the ac^of lb50 became a law. it clearly .s entuKd to njore 
oli ic^ ation than mere ordmary legisla.ion. But notwu standu.g 
;^;u the abolitionists themselves assert that the ^-tl. ^.s lo. in K^ 
five slaves S:Jo,OUO,UUO suice the passage of the act. During tne 
p esc session of Congress we have heard gentlemen representmg 
Eere S a eTl at have nullified this law, either by positive enactments 
or by n ob violence, descant extensively about "compacts" -olated on 
Se part of the South. 1 hope and pray Cod that my section ot the 
Unio 1 nay never again, in an evil hour, be inchned to "compromise 
^ 1 e North on the subject of slavery. A few more -;^ ^. --P-" 
^ises as those we have made, and the tate " {''^Sou } will be sea^^^^^ 
Let us now brietly examine this personal-libeuy bill ot >1;;--^^"^ 
setts about which so much has been said, and ascertain what aie its 
pro\ i.ions I want the whole country, both North and South, to un- 
Uersu'.n.l it; for 1 have never seen it published in full m any newspa- 
per. 1 had to send to Boston tbr the copy which I have. 
^ The act extends to fugitive slaves the right ot trud by jury andhahca. 

"irauihorizes the State officers to 6«;Z the slave without -^ mimmum 
hmit and -iv«>s the jury the right to determine both law nndjuct. 

Ti;: wnerisiH.t-allowed to testify ; no confessions, adm.ssions, or 
dedarations of the slave are admissibk .in -ideiiee ; and r^^x ,artc 
deposition or athdavit received m proot m behall ot the claimant. 

All persons holding office under the laws of Massachusetts are prohi- 
bited rom issuing warrants or serving process in H'^'^ X^^^'fr, 
under;..a//^c//u;-/;/^«rc.ycr>m;«/../onanddisciuahfacation/o,e.err/ier.fl/rer 

for holdhig any othee in that Slate. ^mrii^ina 

The counsel for claimant is prohibited from ever again practicing 

law in Massachusetts. u-. -.^j frnm aid- 

SheriOs, and all other officers in that btate, are prohibited Irom am 
mg in the arrest and return of a fugitive slave under penalty ot a Jir^ 



6 

not less titan one tliousand dollars, and hy imprisonment in the penitentiary 
for not less than one nor more than tivo years ! 

The act further provides for the appointment of attorneys in each county, 
whose duty it is to defend all fugitive slaves at the expense of the State of 
Massachusetts., and refuses theuse of thejails for the benefit of their owners. 

Such, sir, is the personal-liberty bill of Massachusetts! Is it not 
wholly at war, not only with the spirit, but the letter itself, of that clause 
of the constitution which binds Massachusetts to deliver up our slaves 
"on claim of the owner?" Does it not completely nullify the act of 
1850 ? What, I ask, is the constitutional right of recapture on her soil 
worth to the South to-day ? Before the passage of the personal-liberty 
bill, it cost about $30,000 to execute the law of Congress when the 
slave Burns was arrested in Boston. Now, should my slave escape into 
that State, and I follow" him, and comply with all the requisitions of 
the federal law, I cannot recover my property. No attorney can repre- 
sent my cause ! Should I be fortunate enough to arrest my slave, a 
common justice of the peace has the power to issue the writ of habeas 
corpus, and discharge him on a bail bond, with no heavier penalty than 
07ie dollar! No State officer can come to my assistance, because the 
penitentiary would be his reward. 

The fugitive-slave law of 1850 denies to the slave the right of trial 
by jury and habeas corpus in the State where he is arrested. The law 
of Massachusetts confers that right upon him, and thereby conflicts 
with the act of Congress. If fugitive slaves are to have the benefit of 
the writ o^ habeas corpus and jury trial in the North, the South might as 
well consent at once to strike out from our constitution the right of re- 
capture. We want the substance, not the mere shadow of our rights. 
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Granger] admitted in his speech 
that the writ of habeas corptvs " would make slavery impossible in 
America." Of what value would " trial by jury" be to southern men 
in Massachusetts ? I do not believe that a slave would ever be sur- 
rendered to his master by a verdict of such a tribunal. It would be al- 
most impossible to empanel a jury in that State without having some 
men on it who believe in a higher law than the constitution. How does 
Massachusetts attempt to justify her conduct before the people of this 
country? She says that the act of 1850 is unconstitutional, m\(^ \k\.2X 
therefore she will not submit to it. That law was passed by Congress 
in 1850, and was signed by Mr. Fillmore. When President Pierce was 
inaugurated, he said m his address that this act was " strictly consti- 
tutional," and should be " unhesitatingly carried into effect." But upon 
what grounds does Massachusetts claim that the law is unconstitutional? 
Because it withholds from the slave " trial by jury" and benefit of ^'■habeas 
corpus.'''' The act of 1793 was sin ilar in that respect to the act of 1850. 
Neither of them conferred any such right upon the slave. That law has of- 
ten been examined by the highest judicial tribunals of the country, and 
always sustained. 

Pennsylvania once passed a law by which an attempt was made to 
regulate and qualify the right of the South to reclaim her fugitve slaves. 
She did not go half as far as Massachusetts has gone towards defeating 
that right. Her law was reviewed at length by Mr. Justice Story in 
the Supreme Court of the United Slates, in the case of Prigg vs. The 



Commonwealth of ronnsylvania. As his opinion covers llie whole 
question, I ask the indulgence of the House to read certain parts of it. 
Speakinrj in reference to tliat clause in the constitution which treats 
about fugitive slaves, he says : 

"The clause was of the last importance to the safety and security of the southern States, 
and could not have hccn surrendiTcd hv thcni without endunguring their whole property m 
Blavc:3 II')w thi'ii, are wi- to iiiti-rpret'the lanpunne of the clause? The answer is, in such a 
manner as consistently with the words shall fully and completely effectuate the whole ohjecta 
of it." •••••••**• 

"The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the 
part of the owner of the slave, which no State law can in any waif qualify, rer/ulate, control, or 
rcitrain. The slave is not to he discharged from service or hibor inconsequence 0/ any Stale 
law or rti/ulation.'' . . , 

"Now,certainlv, without indulging in any nicety of criticism upon words, it may rairly 
and reasonably he said that any State law or Stale regulation which interrupts, limits, delays, 
or postpones the right of the owner to the immediate possession of the slave, and the immo- 
dialc command of his service and labor, oiierates, pro tanto, a discharge of the slave there- 
from." 

The question, sir, resolves itself into a nul-shcll. If the personal- 
liberty bill of Massachusetts, in any particular, ''intcrntyts, limits, de- 
lays, nr postpones the right of the owner to the immediate possession of 
tJie slave," the Supreme Court says it violates the constitution of the 
United States. That law does all these things, and more. It is not 
only unconstitutional, but is a fliigranL breach of good faith to the South 
on the part of Massachusetts. I concur fully with the President of 
the United States in the opinion expressed in his late annual message, 
that such an act ''would be cause ofuar as between foreign powers, and 
only fail.s to be such in our system because perpetrated under cover of 
the Union." 

Mr. Cliairman, the fact crmnot be concealed — it is so api)arent that 
he "who runs may read it" — that the nullifying law of Massachusetts 
is the legitimate offspring of the deep-seated anti-slavery feeling wliich 
controls the mind and heart of her people. To carry out their fanatical 
puposes, they will override law, onh-r, the constitution, and tlie church 
itself. They are thoroughly identified with the radical abolitionists who 
met last year in Syracu.se, and i)rocUiimed to the world that there was 
no "legal slavery in the United States." That convention adopted a 
resolution calling upon all the northern States to pass laws to nullify 
the fugitive act of 1S50. In their published address to the people of 
this country they say : 

" Fugitive-slave bills are an outrage, bccau-'e slavery is an outrage. They are uncon.^titu- 
tional, because slavery is unconstitutioual. They are to be trnm]>l(d under foot as unlawful, 
because slavery is to be trampled under foot as unlawful. The national government is to re- 
peal them by the national suppression of slavery." 

Now, sir, the resolutions which I oflered to the House embraced this 
principle : that whenevm- any State in the Union, in its sovereign capacity, 
nullifies the law? of Congnvs.s and the federal constitution, it is practi- 
cal secession on the part of said State; and that the general government, 
represented by Congress, ought to ignore that State in all the appro- 
priation bills, and exclude her from representation here. That, sir, is 
my doctrine. I believe in the right of a sovereign State to secede from 
the Union whenever she determines that the federal constitution has 
been violated b}' Congress; and that this government has no constitu- 
tional power to coerce such s-ceduig State. Two, ai least, o: the 



original thirteen States, so guarded were they upon that point that, 
when they ratified the constitution, they expressly reserved the right to 
resume all the power they had delegated to the federal government. 
This government has no original, no inherent powers. All it possesses 
were derived from the States, and it is limited to the exercise of those 
only, and cannot transcend them. Whenever the agent is greater than 
the principal — the creature than the creator — then, but not till then, 
will the federal government be greater than the sovereign States of this 
Union. I do not believe in the doctrine that a State can nullify the 
laws of Congress, trample under foot the constitution, and at the same 
time remain in the Union. The two positions are wholly inconsistent with 
each other. She cannot be allowed to share the bene tits of the gov- 
ernment while she refuses to bear its burdens and submit to its authority. 
Whenever a sovereign State assumes that position, she places herself 
outside of the Union. From whence do you derive the power to coerce 
back mto the Union a seceding State ? Can you point your finger at 
tlie clause in the constitution which confers it ? Do you find it in that 
section which says that the " constitution, and the laws of the United 
State which shall be made in pursuance thereof, &c., shall be the su- 
preme law of the land?" and that the President " shall take care that 
the lavys be faithfully executed ?" When you read that to me, I point 
you to the debates in the convention which framed that constitution — 
to the propositions which were there submitted by Governor ilandolph, 
Charles Pinckney, and Mr. Patterson, to confer this very power on the 
general government, and which, after full discussion, were all voted 
down. Jefferson and Madison, it is reasonable to presume, understood 
the constitution. The Virginia resolutions of 179S, and those of Ken- 
tucky in 1799, (and which at the late democratic convention in Virginia 
were reaffirmed,) expressly assert the right of the States to determine 
fijr themselves the constitutionality ol" the laws passed by Congress, and 
to interpose in their sovereign capacity for "maintaining within respecive 
hmits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." Again : 
.when Congress came to legislate lor the purpose of carrying into effect 
those clauses "of the constitution which I am now discussing, they 
passed a law, in 1795, authorizing the President to call forth the militia 
in certain cases. By an examination of that act it is clear that it ap- 
plies solely to insurrections and combinations of individuals to resist the 
laws of Congress ; it does not apply to States. The act of 1807, which 
confers the power on the President to employ the army and navy to en- 
force the laws, expressly limits its exercise to such cases only " where 
it is lawful" to " call forth the militia.'' If the President has the un- 
fimited power to use the army and navy in all cases where the laws 
are resisted, why did the Congress of 1807 restrict it to such cases 
only as where it was "lawful" to call out the ''jmli/ia?'' The con- 
clusion is irresistible that there might arise obstructions to the execu- 
tion of the laws where it would not be " lawful" for him to employ the 
army and navy. 

The question now properly arises: has Massachusetts, in her sovereign, 
capacity, nullified the fugitive-slave act of 1850? If she has, then she 
has voluntarily placed herself outside of the Union ; has no right to be 
heard in this hall, and, least of all, to occupy the Speaker's chair. 



9 

In what manner, then, is the sovereign will of any State in tliis Union 
to be expressed? The most usu:il way, I ndmit, is ihrougli a conven- 
tion o[ the people. The consliluiion ot'liie United Slates wjis adopted 
upon that principle. All amendments to that constitution must be rati- 
fied by three-fourihs of the several Stiites in their sovereign caparitus. 
And yet, in the fifdi article of that consiitution, we discover that there 
are m-'Miiodes of Jiscertainiiig ^lie sovereign voice of the Stiitcs — the one, 
through conventions; the other, through their legislatures. 

The act to nullity the fugitive-slave law was passed by the legisla- 
ture of Massachusetts; then entlorsed by her people at the polls in a 
subsecpient popular election; and the members ol" her present legisla- 
ture, now in session, instead of rcj)airing the wrong done to the South, 
.have sent on petitions to Congress to sustain them in their nullfi(^ation 
by a repeal of the fugitive act itself. I'racticully, it is the same thing 
as if the personal- liberty bill had been passed by her pe(»ple in con- 
vention. The honorable member from Massachusetts, [Mr. Damrell,] 
the oilier day, in his remarks, (uhnittcd that this law was j)ass<'d by his 
State *' in hrr sovereignti/." 1 employ his axact Uniguage. Ij (hat In: I lie fact, 
then wlii-re lies our remedy? A grij-vous wrong has been done to the 
South; so great, indeed, that the iVesident himself has saitl that as 
between " foreign powers it would be just cause of war." It is a sound 
maxim in liw that for every wrong there is a remedy. What is ours? 
Is it to be found in a second edition of Jackson's proclamation against 
South Canjlina in 1832, when she altempted to nullify iIk; tarifi'law. 
I trust not sir. 1 never wish to see ihat exjieriment made again. I 
think South CaroUna mistook her remedy — secession, and not nulifica- 
tion, ought to have been her watchword. But the President had no 
right to llirealcn her with the army and navy; because South Carolina 
was moving in her sovereii^nty. CJeneral Jackson hiniselt", it is well 
known, afterwards repudiated the principles imbodied in that proclama- 
tion. It never came, in the first place, from his pen. his head, or his 
heart. Whenever the proclamation and force bill shall be incorporated 
in the political platform of any national party in this country, and a 
candidate nominated thereon electetl to the presidency, it will be alter 
the teachings of Jelli'rson, Madison, Rantlol[)h, and Mason an; fi^r- 
golten. Then every vestige of State lines, State rights, and State 
sovereignties will be swept away, and federalism, in its most odious 
form, will triumph throughout the land! When the lime comes that 
tlie union of the States can only be maintained by Jhrce of anus, iho 
sooner it is dissolved the better — better liirus, better f()r ])(xsterilv, and 
the cause of republican gt^vernmeiits throughout the world. We want 
no suhjcct States in the Union ; it is contrary to the spirit of the constitu- 
tion, and the principles upon which the confederacy was formed. 

When a Stale nullifies the laws of Congress, and still insists on rc- 
inauiing in the Union, as Massachusetts is now doing, my remtMly is for 
Congress to ignore that State in the ajipropriafion lulls, arid exclude her 
from rcprfscntatiou in t/iis House, and also in the Sfnate. 

If Congress fails to protect the South against the operation of laws 
in the noilhern States which abrogate the constitutional right of recaj)- 
ture, then, gentlemen, we have another remtdy ; and, as a last resort, 
we will avail ourselves of it. It is the law of ntahation. That subject 



10 

was discussed during the past winter in the legislatures of most of the 
southern States, and found many advocates. It was determined, 
however, not to adopt that course for the present, but to postpone all 
action in the hope that a returning sense of justice might yet induce 
Massachusetts to discharge her constitutional obligations to us. 

There is another circumstance, Mr. Chairman, connected with the 
history of the abolition party of Massachusetts, which, as it occurS' to 
me now, I desire to notice. After obtaining control of the legislature, 
passingthe personal- liberty bill, and chartering the Emigrant Aid Society, 
these men meet together in " Tremont Temple," and send out invita- 
tions to distinguished southerners to visit Boston and defend the institu- 
tion of slaverj'' ! I deeply regret that any son of the South felt it to be 
his duty to favor the proposition. I do not question the motives by 
which the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] was influenced in going 
there — ihey were doubtless patriotic. When I read his able vindica- 
tion of the institutions of the South, and our constitutional riglits in the 
Union, I was almost inclined to pardon him for not imitating the noble 
example set him by the gallant Wise of Virginia. But his lecture 
would now read equally as uell had it been delivered in Washhio^f.on 
instead of Boston. Go to Boston to reason with fanatics on the subject 
of slavery ! What good could result from it? Fanaticism has 'no ear 
for reason. Sooner aim an arrow at the earth, and expect to see it win a 
passage through the heavens, or struggle with the "half-starved lion 
for his prey," than hope to silence fanaticism by the power of argu- 
ment. 

Mr. Chiarman, I shall now notice a few points made by the honorable 

gentleman [Mr. Damrell] in his speech to which I have before alluded. 

Referring to the Congressional Globe, I. find he is reported toliave said: 

"The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Shouter) has made an attempt, according to previous 
promise, to introduce resolutions to expel the Massachusetts delegation from the floor of this 
House, because in her sovereignty she passed the personal-liberty bill for the protection of her 
citizens against the operation of the odious slave law. 1 would suggest to the honorable gen- 
tleman first to offer a resolution to expunge the record of Massachusetts from the history of 
the country, and another to slide Bunker llill and Lexington into the Atlantic." 

Such, sir, is his language. "Slide Bunker Hill and Lexington into 
the Atlantic?" God forbid it! Cursed be the man who could enter- 
tain such a thought. Rather let them stand where they are, as everlast- 
ing mourments to the patriotism of a race now almost extinct in Massa- 
chusetts. Perhaps they may be the means of awakening in the hearts 
of a generation yet to be born upon that soil a desire to emulate the val- 
orous deeds of those illustrious men whose names are so identified with 
those consecrated places that the wing of time can never eflace them. 
Sir, I have a .veneration even for thcrude mounds which the wild Indians 
have left scattered throughout the dense forests of the South. I venerate 
them, because tradition says they were erected in memory of some 
gallant chieftain whose arm was mighty in war — whose heart was de- 
voted to his tribe ! 

No, no ! I would never rob Massachusetts, notwithstanding she has 
trampled under foot the constitutional rights of my section, of a single 
laurel that she has won in fighting the battles of the revolution. I de- 
light to read her early history. In those days that "tried men's .•^ouls" 
she had j)atriots and statesmen nmoTiQ^ her sons ; men who, to-day, if they 



11 

were pcriiiiucd to revisit tlie fu-lds of their glory, would hlush at the 
posiiiou whic-h M.issaehuselts has now assutned towards her sister 
southern Slates. They would pray Heaven that the spirit of wisdom, 
moderation, and justice nii,i;ht a^'ain reluru to that old Coinnionweakh, 
and dwell in iier council halls ! Tiicy would call to mind the time 
when Boston was in possession of the enemy, her citizens driven liom 
th(?ir homes, and expi^sed to the pitiless storms — when, in that dark 
hour of her history, the genius of Massachusetts, with outstretched 
hands and a bleeding heart, appealed to ihe Suutli for aid and protec- 
tion ! And liow, 1 ask you — }iow was tiiat appeal resj)onded \o{ Did 
not a witthrm patriot from the banks of the beautiful rolomac — himself 
a slaveholder — fly to her rescue like an angel of liberty, and dehver 
her people from the bonds of cai)livity ? But let a descendant of llie 
family of Washington now go to the city of Boston to reclaim his fugitive 
slave— let him take with him the constitution of his country, by which 
Massachusetts is solemnly bound to surrender him — instead of recovering 
his j)roperty, lie '\s fortunate indeed if he himself escapes with his Ufe ! 
Well may Massachusetts exclaim, ''Ihrqwra mittnntur ct nos, mntdmur 
cum il/is!" 

The gentleman, sir, referred in rather a boastful manner to the 
''rccurd'" of his t?tale, and suggested to me the propriety of ollering a 
resolution to expunge it from the history of the country ! Let me as- 
sure that gentleman that so long as 1 enjoy the honor of a seat in Con- 
gress 1 shall act in the discharge of my ollicial duties on the responsi- 
bility of my own judgment, and that whenever I nccdhis counsel he will 
not be retpiired to volunteer itV 

But, Mr. Chairman, since the gcjitleman has seen proper to assail 
the State of Mississippi, and to challenge a discussion of the "record" of 
his own State, 1 will take up the gauntlet he has thrown down, and 
enter the arena. I shall not be so ungallanl as to defend Mississippi 
here. She has Ac/- (*?/•« champions ujjon this floor; and among them, 
one at h^ast, who has stood by tiie "Hash of the cannon," and success- 
fully detended her honor amidst the thunders of battle ! 

I make free, however, to say that there are some things in the 
"record" of Massachusetts which, if 1 could, I would, for the honor of 
my country, gladly expunge. Would you know what they are V I 
would expunge the fact that the hero (!) of the disgraceful surrender 
of Detroit — the man who was sentenced i>y court martial to be execu- 
ted, but was afterwards pardoned — had his home in IVhissachusetts. 
I would expunge the history of that State during the war with Great 
liritain in ISl'J. I would consign to the flames the letter written by 
her sovernor at that time in answer to a call made upon him b}' (len- 
eral Deiu'born for troops to def(?nd her own seacoast and her own 
towns. I would draw black lines around the fact that Massachusetts 
was the author of the treasonable Hartford Convention. I would ex- 
punge ihe brutal murder of Batchcldcr. I would wipe from the steps of 
her capitol the stain where he pouretl out his heart's blood in defence 
of the majesty of law and the constitution of his country! 

There is another thing over which, God knows, if I had the power, 
I would throw a pall as d.irk as Erebus — I rcfrrto the fpsolutionsthat 
were acted upon in the senate and house of the Massachusetts legislu- 



12 

lure during our war with Mexico. At that time the battle of Buena 
Vista had been fought and won. The first tidings of victory that came 
to us seemed to be borne on the wings of the wind, and spread over the 
Union with electric speed. The heart of the country leaped for joy. 
Every tongue was eloquent with the names and deeds of Taylor, Lane, 
Davis, Marshall, and their illustrious associates in arms. But Arkan- 
sas was called to mourn the death of her gallant Yell, Blinois her Har- 
din, Kentucky her McKee and Clay. The flag of the stars and stripes 
was entwined with the laurel and the myrtle — emblems of a nation's 
joy and a nation's grief! Upder such circumstances, the legislature of 
Massachusetts met, and the following resolutions, having passed the 
house, were offered in her senate : 

" Resolved, That the thanks of the legislature are due, and they are hereby tendered, to 
Major General Zachary Taylor, his officers and men, for the tidelity, skill, and courage ■which 
have distinguished their successful operations in the campaign of Mexico. 

•' liesolved, That while the people and legislature of Massachusetts feel proud of the brilliant 
achievements of the army employed in the war against Mexico, they mourn the loss of the 
officers and men Avbo have gallantly fallen upon the battle field, and sincerely sympathize 
with their relatives and friends." 

But few members appear (by the report now before me) to have 
been present when the final vote on these resolutions was taken. Only 
/oui; however, are recorded in the affirmative ; while Jou7-tec7i voted in 
the negative ! 

But, sir, that was not the only resolution that was entertained by 
that legislature. The following was passed by the House ; but to the 
honor of the democratic party be it said, they voted against it and stood 
by their country: 

" Resolved, That such a war of conquest, so hateful in its objects, so wanton, unjust, and 
unconstitutional in its origin and character, must be regarded as a war against freedom, 
against humanity, against justice, against the Union, against the constitution, and ayainst the 
free Stales." 

Mark tlie climax! They place the "free States" above freedom, 
humanity, justice, the Union, and the constitution! Those resolutions, 
sir, f'peak Jbr tJumsehes ; and here I will close the book containing tlie 
"historic glories" of the State of Massachusetts! 

But, before I dismiss the subject, there is one other fact so highly 
appropriate to the occasion, that I must mention it for the benefit of 
future historians. It is this : when the illustrious Mississippian on my 
right [Cieneral Quitman] captured the city of Mexico, and entered the 
palace of Santa Anna, he found there, to his mortification and regret, a 
copy of these Massachusetts resolutions! The world may judge whether 
they gave aid and comfort to the enemy! 

But, Mr. Chairman, there are other parts of the gentleman's speech 
to which 1 desire to direct the attention of the House. Speaking about 
the Kansas question, and in reply to the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. 
Oliver,] he says : 

"Who made Missouri the guardian of Kansas Territory? I admit it vf&s prejudiM to the 
peculiar instifictions of Missouri, but not to her true ijitcrcsts, to settle Kansas witlf freemen. 
Northern emigrants have never been sent to the Territory to interfere directly with slavery ia 
Miasouri, but to establish freedom in Kansas." 

Now, sir, in true Yankee style, to which the gentleman surely cannot 
object, I run the question he asks back again to him, and inquire who 



13 

made Mmsachtisetts the guardian of Kansas? To what jurisdiction did 
she apply f>r letters of ^mardianship ? She seems to jmve chartered 
the hrst company to take ])ossrssion of the Territory, and to shape and 
control the future destinies of Kansas. Where did you get your au- 
thority from V He admits tliat it would be prejudicial to the " jKcvlutr 
imtifntwH,'' of Missouri, but contends that her 'Hrue interests'' would 
not suffer, for slavery to be excluded from (hat Territory. Who is the 
better <jUMltfie<l to j mitre of that matter— the State of Missouri, or the 
Monorablc gentleman hun.M'lf/ Missouri thinks, and so does the whole 
^..utli,^that her "true mterests" would be sacrificed bv the creation of 
a tree State on her western border. The " true interests" of the southc ri 
Mates are identihed with their "peculiar itistitutions." Whatever 
af ects the one reaches the other ; strike down the one and th- oiher 
lails jilso. 

There is another admission which the gcnllrman makes that is 
worthy of not.cc. It is nothing new to tlie country ; but heretofore 
nis party, accorduig to my recollection, has denied the char^re. He 
ad.nits that men have been "*c«/" by the North to establish " frc^edom" 
in Kansas. The apologists of the Emiirrant Aid Society of his State 
have contended that they only "aich-d" honest emigrants in reaching 
Iha lerniory when tlu-y desired, of their own accord, to go there and 
iiiake It their permanent homes. The gentleman, however, now admits 
that men have been "sent" there, and that, too, /or a jvn-posc. 

Again: he says the "AW/// is determined to send into Kansas her 
hest men, witli strong arms and hrarc hearts, who will fearlessly rally 
around the standard of freedom," &c. If the country is involved in 
cavil war over this Kansas question, the responsibilities will rest ui)on 
the abolition or black republican party of the North. They viola' ed 
Hie principle of " non-inK.rvenlion" contained in the Nebraska act, and 
inaugurated the system of sauUn^y men into Kansas to "establish free- 
dom and exclude the South from her equal rights in the common 
terntones of the Lnion. And now the gentleman rises in his place 
on tins tl,,or and proclaims to the country that the North (by whirl. I 
suppose, he means the black republicans) is determined to send her 
Lest men, with strong arms and brave hearts" to defend the standard 

of th rr. ;'" r" ^^''"''5- Z^'^'"' ''^' ^ ''^'" g'-'^'l y°" have informed us 
tl en n { 1 (^ ^''''''^'f^M^'rmcd. If that is your plan of operations, 

brave hearts; ' they will find men as good, and hearts as hvJe a. 
theirs, to oppose them. Call in to vour assistance the fanatical 

«Prv wl''V r-'"!" l'''"'>'-'"'-" ^^-''o P"^ ^>n the "livery of Heaven to 
sene the devil in '-c-onverl the pulpit from its holy purposes into a 
pohtu-al rostrum. Instead of "Clu-ist, and him crucified," let the 
wrongs of Kansas" be your theme. In the place of songs and 
anthems to the most High, raise your voices "in shrieks for freedom " 
Call together your Ikcckcrs, ^nd Sillmans, nnd Vmons, ^mX re-enact 
£.JW K^r""' which were recent ly witnessed in a church at 

New Haxen. ^\ here ever before, in the history of this country, was 
here collected together in a temple dedicated to the worship 'of the 
living God such a compound af "black spirits and white, blue spirits 
and gray, as were there assembled ? It reminded me of the infernal 



14 

cava scene in Macbeth — with the boiling cauldron in the centre— Dut- 
ton, Beecher, and SiUiman, in imitation of the three witches, their illus- 
trious prototypes, threw in the " poisoned entrals," and exclaimed : 

"Double, double, toil and trouble; 
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble 1" 

Instead of offering prayers to Heaven for the temporal and spiritual 
welfare of the deluded victims whom they were sending to Kansas, 
we find those fanatics offering th(Mn 8/iar-pe's rifles, and counselling 
them to engage in civil war and bloodshed ! Go on, gentlemen, if you 
prefer it, in your aggressive warfire on the constitutional rights of the 
iSouth. You are "sowing the wind" — beware, lest you "reap the 
whirlwind ! " 

The extraordinary exertions made by Massachusetts and the black 
republican party of the North to rob the South of her equal rights in 
the territories has had one effect. You have thoroughly aroused the 
soutliern States to a sense of their danger. You have caused them 
co(5lly to estimate the value of the Union ; and we are determined to 
maintain our eqwdity in it, or independe?ice otil of it. Your course upon 
this Kansas question has touched the heart and pride of the South. 
We were content to let the Territory be .peopled by the natural laws 
of emigration. But you have thought proper to interfere, and with 
arms in hands threatened to monopolize the country — and that, too, 
for the declared purpose of affecting "injuriously" the pecuhar institu- 
tions of the South. In my section of the Union the masses of the peo- 
ple are not easily excited to enthusiasm by any political questions. 
They are never carried away by those obnoxious "isms" of the day 
which have sprung up under the fostering influence of the abolition 
party. We do not dwell in cities and towns as universally as you do 
in the North. We are scattered over a vast extent of fertile country, 
and, in the peaceful pursuits of agriculture, are content, happy, and 
independent. But. when once aroused by a sense of wrong and op- 
pression, the spirit of the- South is invincible.^ It follows wherever the 
voice of patriotism calls. It is that spirit which has always led our 
cvrmies on to battle and to victory. Send on your "brave men" and 
"strong arms" to Kansas; whenever your hostile swords glisten in 
the sunbeams there, you will find foemen worthy of your steel! 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot dismiss the gentleman from Massachusetts 
without noticing another portion of his speech. He said : 

"I would inform the honorable gentleman (Mr. Olivkr) that there is another class of 
preachers at the North who, I know, bow so low to the 'patriarchal institution,' that they are 
ready to send their mothers into slavery at the bidding of the slave power." 

Now, sir, I deny the right of the gentleman to pronounce such a 
judgment upon those conservative preachers in the North, who enter- 
tain a high regard for the sanctity of the pulpit, and who never have 
interfered with the constitutional rights of the South, nor undertaken 
to advise Congress in the name of the Almighty himself. But as the 
gentleman aflirms that he ''knows'" such cases, and seems to speak 
from personal acquaintance, I will make no issue of veracity with him. 
Yet, sir, I will venture this assertion: Let him point me out a preacher 
in his district. — a free white man — who is base enough to send his own 
mother into slavery at the bidding of anybody, and I will undertake to 



16 

i^fonounco that man an ahditionist, and <»ne, too, who belongs to that 
party in Massachusetts, which is in favor of reducing to a test the ques- 
tion as to the capacitij of the Caucasian to absorb the Aj'r'wan face. 

Gentlemen, this shivery tjuestion, which the flinatics of the North 
have t()re<'(l upon the country, has now assumed a fearful aspect. The 
South has planted itself where it intends to stand ov fill, Union or no 
Union, and that is upon the platform laid down by the Georgia con- 
vention. The next presidential election will be decided upon a sectional 
issue. 7V<c b/nck riynbllcan par^j or the national democracy will make 
the prisidint. What is the " programme" of these misnamed republi- 
cans V The aged member frt)m Ohio, who for the last twenty years 
has acted as high j)riest in the abolition church, and kept the fires 
blazing on its altars, has boldly procl;iimed it feo the worlcl. He al- 
ways expresses his sentiments freely and fearlessly. 'That is one fea- 
ture in his political character which commands my respect. But with 
him, as with the Cors;iir, it may be only " one virtue linked with a 
thousand crimes." (Jive me for an enemy a man who always openly 
avows himself one. 1 know how to meet, and, if it needs be, to tight him. 
But heaven save me from falling a victim to the dagger of an assassin ! 

What then, sir, is that programme ? An expulsion of the South from 
all the common territories of the Union; no more slave States to be admitted ; 
and the repeal of the fugitive-slave law. 

I want these questions, sir, met fairly and squarely. [A Voice. 
" That is right — that is our platform."] Then stand up to your plat- 
form, and let the country know where you are. We tell you plahily 
that wc take issue with you ; and whenever you repeal the fugitive- 
slave law, or refuse to admit a State on account of slavery in her con- 
stitution, or our equality in the territories is sacrificed by an act of 
Congress, thm the star of this Union will go down to rise no more. 

Shoukl we be forced to dissolve the Union in order to preserve south- 
ern institutions and southern civilization, we will do it in peace, if we 
can; in war, if wc must; and let the God of b;ittles decide between us. 

The shadows, sir, of the coming storm already darken our pathway. 
It will soon be upon us with all its fliry. [ regret that, in this critical 
period of our country's history, those three great men, to whom we have 
been heretofore accustomed to look in the hour of peril for counsel and 
protection, are gone. They have made their last speech — fought their 
last battle for the constitution nnd the Union. Webster — the profound 
lawyer, the elegant scholar, the statesman — the man who was expelled 
by the citizens of Boston from Faneuil Hall — the cradle of lil)erty — 
because he dared stand up in the Senate chamber on a memorable 
occasion and spf^ak " not as a Massachusetts man, not as a northern 
man, but as an American" — Webster, the Godlike in intellect, where is 
heV Go to Marshfield, and in the wild ocean's roar you may 3-el hear 
his requiem. The clear, eloquent voice of the man of Ashland — whieh 
always held captive those who came within its, magic influence — will 
never again be heard in the halls of Congress tendering the olive branch 
between the contending sections of the Union. And when we cast our 
eyes to the extreme South, we look in vain for that star of the first 
magnitude which for nearly half a century had no rival in that political 
firmament. The beautiful palmetto now casts its shade upon the grave 



/ 



/ 




/ / 16 

of the ^_dt Calhoun. In hfe he was a towe "0" 011 837 319 4< 

the Soutli, bat to the Union itself. Gifted wim tne spirit of prophecy, 
he looked far into the future, and told us of the events now transpiring 
around us. His political platform wa? the constitution of his country, 
strictly construed. In debate he wielded a flaming sword in defence 
of the rights of the States against federal usurpation. Some there were, 
1 know, who, unable to fathom his patriotism and comprehend his 
motives, were accustomed to denounce him as an " alarmist," ai) " ab- 
stractionist," a " disunionist ;" but when those men who thus slandered 
him are dead and gone, and their names no longer remembered on earth, 
the fame of Calhoun will shine out with all the splendor of the mid-day 
sun. But peace to his ashes — green be the grass upon his grave ! 

I repeat, sir, that in this hour of danger it is a source of regret to me 
that the ship of State has to be entrusted to new and comparatively un- 
tried hands. Whether it will go down beneath the waves of popular ex- 
citement, or rid.e out the storm in safety, is a problem yet to be solved. 
The 'presidential election will settle the question. I hope and'rrust in God that 
the Union of these States, as established by our forefathers, will be pre- 
served, and handed down as a blessing to posterity. I love the Union. 
I am no disunionist per se, and never was. In 1851 I acted with the 
southern-rights party, and glory in it now. But, sir, I loved the Union 
then, and love it still. I wish it to last as long asjhe sun shines or-the 
water runs. Its " music" has a charm to my ear V but I can never 
*'keep step to it" ualess lam marching under the banner of the constitu- 
tion. I blindly follow no party — no men. 

How can the Union be preserved ? There is but one way to save 
it. Let the Souths as a unit, act with the true and conservative demo- 
crats in the North, who are now rallied under the flag of State rights 
and the constitution, and fighting nobly against our common enemy. 
If the national democracy, as at present organized, shall succeed, all 
will be well; but, if the banner of black republicanism triumphs, it will 
be the signal for the destruction of the best government that the genius 
of man ever constructed. We will stand by you, men of the North, 
who stand by our constitutional rights; we will strengthen your arm 
in the fight, and hope that our voices may mingle with yours in the 
shouts of victory at ttie end of the contest. The peace of the country 
requires that this fanatical abolition spirit should be crushed. I appeal 
to the conservative men of the North to terminate this crusade which 
republicans and abolitionists, in an allied army, are urging against the 
rights of the South. Let this agitation cease. Let the blessings of this 
government fall, like the dews of heaven, equally upon all sections of 
the Union, and then you will find the citizens of the whole country 
clinging to the constitution as the palladium of our rights, and to the 
union of these States as the ark of our political safety. Then, as the 
ra3'S of the morning sun falling on Memnon's lyre always cause it to 
vibrate tones of heavenly music, so will the light which shines forth 
from the stars of our national flag ever fill the great heart of the Ameri- 
can people with jo3'ful enthusiasm, and animate it with impulses of 
a lofty patriotism. 



„BRARV OF CONGRESS 

mill llli 

011837 319 4 • 



Hollmger Corp. 
pH8.5 



mmmm 



s 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



01 



1 837 319 4 O 



Hollinger Corp. 



